Wednesday, February 27, 2013

More Sexism from Moderators on HotCopper: Breast-feeding is Arrogant!

On The Arrogance of Whipping Out Boobs In Public

To think HotCopper nearly appointed a new female moderator following my complaint. Didn't they have a lucky escape. I expect HotCopper management had second thoughts, figuring any woman, even one of their preferred ideological position, might try to create a female friendly environment and scare away all their current patrons. (The bread and butter of HotCopper's preferred business model is misogynistic men from the extreme end of right wing nuttery).

The right to 'pop out a breast'?

Here is a comment from the moderator they chose instead - labelling as 'arrogant' women who breast-feed their infants in public. (Of course, Play2Win could be a woman who conforms to the recommendation of the HotCopper Administrator, that women should pretend to be men while on HotCopper's share trading discussion board.)

Incidentally, the first poster in the thread (LJsilver) is apparently completely unaware that the female of all mammalian species (not just the human kind) suckle their infants with milk secreted from glands. (The words 'mammal' and 'mammary' as in mammary gland are both derived from same Latin root.)

The OP implies that breast-feeding is instead some sort of strange and new politically correct fashion sweeping the western world of the human species.

Arrogant Tony pops out two breasts!

Let's take bets on HotCopper mods' 'opinion' of their darling, Tony Abbott, whipping out his boobs in public. (Another case of men wanting to set different 'rules' for men and women, no doubt!)

Breast-feeding mother - arrogant, eh?

Update: Acknowledgement and Repentance?

Looks as if Play2Win has since used his powers of moderation to not simply delete the content of his comment (as seen above), but consistent with the HotCopper's inconsistent approach to 'openness and transparency' (ie only when it suits them) has erased all trace as if it never existed. The other sexist (and islamophobic) comments in the thread are still there.

(Normal policy is for moderators to replace the post they find offensive with an explanation, leaving a record in place. Not necessarily a rational explanation and at times not even a relevant explanation but it's some attempt to be open at least. At other times, particularly with their favourites who 'err', they will simply erase all record of the comment as has happened here.)

On the plus side, maybe it's a sign that Play2Win recognises his post was sexist, which would be a (baby) step in the right direction.

Update 2:

Play2Win did not repent, he's doubled down on sexism. He has resurrected his post word for word in another more recent thread about breast-feeding. One in which HotCopperites all pile on with more sexism. They even manage to use the thread (on breast-feeding) to air their racist bigotry.

What an ugly intolerant environment HotCopper has created and continues to cultivate. Disgusting in any circumstances, but especially so for a commercial business operation!

Update 3:

Play2Win clarifies his position in the comments below: It's not just arrogant to breastfeed in public, it's arrogant and disrespectful.

(Sadly, not even baby steps in the right direction.)

Update 4:

Among other attributes, Play2Win is a tad inconsistent, for example, he seemed irate that, following his suggestionorder, I have advised people there is a maximum comment size (which, since most people write well within the character limit, I didn't know about, and thought was a worthwhile suggestion.)

Given this inconsistency, I can only hope the following is an accurate representation:

Play2Win clarifies his position further in yet another comment below: Breastfeeding women (and presumably their infants) are not just arrogant and disrespectfulin putting the newborn's need for sustenance above the needs of others, they are also selfish and indulgent. ("...when being arrogant is putting your own selfish, indulgent actions above anyone elses").

Update 5:

Play2Win writes: 'I will test the notion. The next time I see a woman breast feeding I will sit right next to her. I won't perve. I just sit next to her like I would with any member of the public. The reaction will be interesting. If she flinches one iota then I rest my case.'

Ugh - creepy. With the discussion board run by people like this is it any wonder this goes on?

Indeed, Dogby. However I doubt infants care much about the law at that stage in their life :)

(Imagine a cop arresting a newborn baby for feeding! It's as difficult as imagining how it is that these men can find newborn babies so offensive. They must have got way too divorced from the natural world. One wonders how they cope with day-to-day living stuck inside their own bodies.)

"A very interesting take you have there MobyT. You make an assumption that the moderator is a woman posing as a man to conform to the Hot Copper male sexist culture. That is a paranoid supposition which raises concerns. You seem to suggest everything isn't what's presented at face value...a conspiracy is at play.

I interpret the comment as follows. Firstly you must accept that a definition of arrogance is to place self-importance on yourself to a degree that your opinion is all that's considered. Yes, Australia breast has laws allowing breast feeding in public without discrimination. But is there a time when a law isn't the measure of justice?

Would you breast feed at a Sunday service in the front row? Would you breast feed at a funeral, possibly by the grave side? Why not? It's LAW that a person breast feeding can not be discriminated against. Breast feeding is natural, breast feeding is spontaneous as babies feed when hungry. Why would a person use common sense, show respect and consideration towards others at certain situations? Because the person dispels their given right to law, a person dispels their self-importance to carry through a law regardless of what others may experience from such a lawful act. Basically a person chooses not to be arrogant. So, by deduction, a person who chooses to breast feed in the above situations is displaying arrogance. Such a person may choose to not attend if it is 'absolutely' impossible to feed the baby any other way. Or, a person may choose to compromise and expel some of nature's nectar and feed with respect. That is, respect to others, and respect to themselves because they have assessed a situation objectively and not let their indulgent ego over ride damn common sense.

You have also not represented the thread subject matter that caused the discussions. You chose the section that furthered your vendetta towards Hot Copper, and more concerning, towards moderators who you know nothing about. You show a total lack of understanding towards the moderation process. You have no respect for moderators as you group them based on the misjudged injustices you believe have been carried out against you.

Just for the record. Posts are 'ghosted' not to whitewash indulgent moderators with special treatment. Posts are 'ghosted' to avoid a sea of greyed out posts with can create lack of fluency when reading a thread with stop/start sections. EVERY member of HC is offered this choice, especially those who request removal. The posts are not erased, as you indicate. They can be found in the members' account, and, if not a post against HC posting guidelines, can be pasted where ever the member chooses. Topics on HC provoke discussion, they are not uniform so everyone has a politically correct uniform opinion. That's what makes HC THE NUMBER ONE TRADING FORUM IN AUSTRALIA. Those capitals on HC would be regarded as SHOUTING and every member equally would have their post moderated. I used them to highlight that HC is not some tit bit, sexist, conspiracy riddled forum. We have a high calibre of advertisers and a very high standard of members, administration, technical support and, of course, a team of dedicated moderators who volunteer their time and strive to make impartial decisions.

You seem to promote free speech and accountability on here. I am Play2Win. I give you a challenge, post this post in full as a token of allowing me the free speech to defend the accusations you've stated. Printed defamation is a serious offence in Australia. I wouldn't waste my time with the Human Rights Commission who is another politically correct entity. That's why your remark that they haven't prosecuted anyone stands. I'm prepared to treat the matter as a civil action. It's in your best interest to print this an offer a retraction. And for such a knowledgable person you are committing a serious legal offence. You are in breach of copyright because the posts you have pasted are owned by Report Card, HC's registered owner. But I guess you're overlooking that free speech has legal boundaries.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter as I don't take kindly to inaccuracies being posted about me for some quest which only your logic can rationale.

Rather than being sarcastic why don't you address the remarks put forth. Let's cut the chase. Is it appropriate to breast feed anywhere anytime because a law is in place. Use my two examples and comment. Or does objectivity play a part in making a decision? And why are women who choose to disregard the environment they choose to breast feed in not arrogant when being arrogant is putting your own selfish, indulgent actions above anyone elses'. Gees...HC would've answered it by now. Not every answer would've been politically correct but at least the site doesn't side step...lol

You make another sarcastic remark in regards to the character posting limit. You need to reassess your reading skills. I stated that in a SINGLE post there is no warning that the character limit is being used up. It's obvious that the character limit does not apply to a combination of posts or else how would I have posted the exact post broken up, plus the other one??? Maybe you should address the remark and not use your power as a moderator to condescend your posters.

MobyT, I also raised the issue of copyrighting HC posts. Please respond to my allegation.

You also seem to select a certain snippet to represent to your members. This tends to misrepresent the context of a post and the character of the poster. Please respond on the value of this approach to your site as you are libelling HC members.

Of course I understand if this post is erased to never exist. Maybe you should introduce a TOU system so there is some sort of record available to your members. Openness and accountability, along with free speech, is the essence of a good forum.

@Anonymous - I tell it as I see it and don't bend any truth. As you can see here, I post supporting information in my articles.

I expect there will be some past and present HC subscribers who will be surprised and probably pleased to learn they can now request complete removal of their comments on HC (not simply deletion of the comment, but all trace of it) and their request will be granted - according to Play2Win.

I was certainly never offered that as an option in my years of posting.

I stated clearly that some posts are removed by request. A poster TOU's their post for being a duplicate, it's removed. Why leave it there with the remark 'Duplicate'?It's better it's removed to allow fluency in reading the thread without greyed areas to skip. A poster requests they may have posted unsubstantiated information and TOU's their post. Why leave it there clogging up a thread? Removal of the post to the MEMBERS view is at our discretion. Of course the post is still there for us to see when viewing the thread and available on the member's account. You purposely disinformed readers to make it sound like an under handed, covert conspiracy. If you TOUed your own post on HC what would your reason be? It would be something like, 'Incorrect material, please remove my post.' In that case I would ghost it as there is absolutely, positively, zilch to be gained by leaving it there greyed out.

Apology if my other posts indicated otherwise. But nobody, say, has a post that causes their suspension and they request a ghosting. Or flames and baits someone and has their post ghosted. Or else, the poster would show a clean record to someone doing a search. Only posts that don't destroy any accountability are removed with discretion. And the discretion has no under handed motives.

I don't like Koch's use of the word 'classy' as that is a sexist remark but the rest is spot on.

He uses the word 'courtesy.'

Nobody, including my self is saying it is an abhorrent act.

All that's being stayed is that you don't pop out a breast anywhere anytime just because a law exists.

I will test the notion. The next time I see a woman breast feeding I will sit right next to her. I won't perve. I just sit next to her like I would with any member of the public. The reaction will be interesting. If she flinches one iota then I rest my case...it will mean that it's ok on her terms but not once others are to be considered...being...my right to use that seat.

You have to admit MobyT...the right to breast feed in public must also not discriminate against other peoples' right to use that space.

I don't usually get involved in this type of discussion, but "P2W" has obvious issues with the female anatomy and with fundamental human rights. He's effectively saying that babies don't have the right to be fed in public, a stance that could have serious effects on an infant and on its parents if the baby is in a location where it is not possible to move immediately to a 'suitably private' place in which to breast feed.

I wonder if this guy, P2W, signs his moderations or is he one of these moderators, on HC,that can do and say as they please and hide behind their reasons of decisions, like "SOME" choose to do, and fail to sign their own work. What happens when the "HC team" decides to "create" a history for you and then moderates everything you say, from that moment on, in a biased way and site "YOU HISTORY"(that they have created), whether right or wrong, as justification for doing so. I have found this behavior and excuse to be self serving and consistent with how they "CHOOSE" to conduct their site. So, when it comes to being open and honest, I suggest that HC has a long way to go, as how do you know who you are talking too, at any given time? HC offers no excuse for some of their moderators not giving their HC identity, whether anonymous or not, and in not being willing to sign their "Handy work", whether correct and justified or not, doe's speak volumes for the double standards, that are littered all over the HC site and can be viewed by any one any day or night and that I say P2W has displayed and accused you of here. It is totally in line with what I have seen and been informed of on HC myself.This is my opinion, to which I am supposedly entitled to but I just have a feeling that P2W and other's may disagree.That would be the pattern that I have witnessed so far. A DOUBLE STANDARD, that should be plain for all to see.The members of the public are expected to take into account, the fact that HC chooses to use FREE VOLUNTEER MODERATORS, to police their site, and I say, in a manner that is flawed and is just not working to a satisfactory level or to a degree that could be considered by the public and by it's own members,to be fair and reasonable to everybody and could be considered to be self serving and inconsistent, to say the least. There is no avenue of complaint or independent avenue for review, unless it is through one of their established channels, that they have chosen, to push aside your complaint or treatment, except of course court or ASIC.I wonder if members were allowed to report on a moderators performance or lack of performance, how many would pass the test, or even continue to be ALLOWED to volunteer, in what I say, is an unsatisfactory way.???

Again , this is my opinion, to which I am entitled to , according to P2W, but I have been followed before and I am not willing to post under anything other than Anonymous as a direct result of this behavior that I have mentioned above.

New Look

G'day. HotWhopper is having a facelift. Do let me know if you find anything missing or broken.

When you read older articles on a desktop or notebook, you may find the sidebar moves down the page, instead of being on the side. That can happen with some older articles if your browser is not the full width of your computer screen. I am not planning to check every previous post, so if you come across something particularly annoying, send me an email and I'll fix it. Or you can add your thoughts to this feedback article.

You can use the menu up top to get to the blogroll or whatever it is you might be looking for on the sidebar.

When moderation shows as ON, there may be a short or occasionally longer delay before comments appear. When moderation is OFF, comments will appear as soon as they are posted.

All you need to know about WUWT

WUWT insider Willis Eschenbach tells you all you need to know about Anthony Watts and his blog, WattsUpWithThat (WUWT). As part of his scathing commentary, Wondering Willis accuses Anthony Watts of being clueless about the blog articles he posts. To paraphrase:

Even if Anthony had a year to analyze and dissect each piece...(he couldn't tell if it would)... stand the harsh light of public exposure.

Definition of Denier (Oxford): A person who denies something, especially someone who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence.
‘a prominent denier of global warming’
‘a climate change denier’

Alternative definition: A former French coin, equal to one twelfth of a Sou, which was withdrawn in the 19th century. Oxford. (The denier has since resurfaced with reduced value.)